alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021320EN.01000701.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 — Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v Council of the European Union

(Case C-872/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Action for annulment brought by a third State - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Condition that the applicant must be directly concerned by the measure that forms the subject matter of the action - Concept of a ‘legal person’ - Interest in bringing proceedings - Regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures)

(2021/C 320/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2019, Venezuela v Council (T-65/18, EU:T:2019:649), in so far as it dismisses the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s action for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2019, Venezuela v Council (T-65/18, EU:T:2019:649), in so far as it dismisses the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s action for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the merits;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
##### 



CSB BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT 31.2
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer I, Paula J. Meiler, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CSB
Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):   21.




---



##### 



CSB BANCORP, INC.  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Paula J. MeilerPaula J. MeilerSenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer   22.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory BENJAMIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-8001.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 19, 2005.

Decided Oct. 5, 2005.

Gregory Benjamin, Appellant pro se. Kwame Jangha Manley, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Benjamin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benjamin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 12,  2010
    /s/ Eddie L. SteinerEddie L. SteinerPresident and
Chief Executive Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
otherwise stated in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 97

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 
       Government Reform in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2015

Mr. Chaffetz submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 
       Government Reform in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $18,059,682 for the One 
Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $9,029,841 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2015, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2016; and
            (2) not more than $9,029,841 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2016, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2017.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-13-00221-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PADRON PLUMBING, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator, Padron Plumbing, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for temporary relief in the above cause on April 26, 2013. The Court granted the motion 

for temporary relief and requested that the real party in interest, Joe Williamson 

Construction Co. Inc. (“Williamson”), file a response to the petition. Williamson filed its 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus on May 15, 2013. Relator shortly 

thereafter notified this Court that the parties had reached an agreement to compromise 

and settle their differences in the underlying lawsuit. Relator has now filed an 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

unopposed motion to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that the parties have 

fully and finally compromised and settled all matters in controversy between them. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered “Relator’s Unopposed Motion 

to Voluntarily Dismiss Original Proceeding,” is of the opinion that the motion should be 

granted. Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court, 

GRANTS “Relator’s Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Original Proceeding,” and 

DISMISSES this cause AS MOOT without reference to the merits thereof. Pending

motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED AS MOOT. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of August, 2013.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)**

**AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

**OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended

September30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  DENNIS E. BUNDAY    |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Dennis  E. Bunday        |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |
| Williams  Controls, Inc  |   |
| December  27, 2004       |   |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 786 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 786

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that India should 
     be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2016

    Mr. Pallone (for himself and Mr. Bera) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that India should 
     be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Whereas there are currently 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security 
        Council;
Whereas India is the second most populous country in the world with over 
        1,200,000,000 citizens;
Whereas the Republic of India is the world's largest democracy;
Whereas India has the third largest standing army in the world and has 
        demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting regional and global peace 
        by providing tens of thousands of troops to United Nations-mandated 
        peacekeeping missions;
Whereas India has been elected 7 times as a nonpermanent member of the United 
        Nations Security Council, and, in 2010, a majority of the United Nations 
        General Assembly elected the Republic of India to be the Asian 
        representative to the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas the United States-India relationship is an essential partnership 
        supporting global economic and strategic policies; and
Whereas in 2010 and in 2015 President Barack Obama expressed support for a 
        reformed United Nations Security Council and India's entry as a 
        permanent member: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports India's inclusion as a permanent member of the 
        United Nations Security Council; and
            (2) supports the Obama administration's continued work with 
        members of the United Nations to effect India's entry as a 
        permanent member of the Security Council.
                                 <all>
```
#### State Of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYCOR WALLS, INC. and Fred J. Nove, Defendants-Appellants, and Gerald F. Nove, Defendant.

No. 05-1169.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 4, 2005.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 9, 2005.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge. ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# C_2018445EN.01002201.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/22

---

Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)

(Case T-609/18)

(2018/C 445/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media GmbH (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schulze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger und C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘d:ternity’ — EU trade mark No 11 152 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 in Case R 2324/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                EXHIBIT 27
                          FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

                           TREMONT ADVISERS, INC.
                               JUNE 30, 1998


THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS  UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
THE  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD THEN ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000880320                         
<NAME>   Tremont Advisers, Inc.                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                      US
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998                                 
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         914,214
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,531,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,518,819
<PP&E>                                           806,499 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (441,608)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,583,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,057,341
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                          40,893
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,255,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,583,959
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,870,826
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,692,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,210,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                     409,182 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              801,327
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                     801,327 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.19 
        


</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 12, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-09-00416-CV 

MARK MCCAY, DECO-DENCE L.L.C., 

AND EDWIN C. OLSEN IV, Appellants 

V. 

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., LEE HANCOCK, 

FRANCES ANN GIRON, DENTON PUBLISHING CO., 

MARK D. CORNEWETT, AND COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 07-08599-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

In an order dated January 23, 2014, the Court reinstated this appeal having received 

notice that the bankruptcy proceeding involving one of the appellants had been closed. We 

ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file, by February 24, 2014, either the clerk’s record 

or written verification that appellants had not requested its preparation or made payment 

arrangements. We cautioned appellants that if the Court received written verification of no 

request or no payment, we would dismiss the appeal without further notice. 

On February 24, 2014, the Court received written verification from the Dallas County 

District Clerk that appellants had not requested the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we dismiss the 
 –2– 

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). 

090416F.P05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MARK MCCAY, DECO-DENCE L.L.C., 

AND EDWIN C. OLSEN IV, Appellants 

No. 05-09-00416-CV V. 

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., 

LEE HANCOCK, FRANCES ANN GIRON, 

DENTON PUBLISHING CO., 

MARK D. CORNEWETT, AND 

COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C., Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. 07-08599-E. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Moseley and Lang, participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., LEE 

HANCOCK, FRANCES ANN GIRON, DENTON PUBLISHING CO., MARK D. 

CORNEWETT, AND COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C., recover their costs of this appeal from 

appellants, MARK MCCAY, DECO-DENCE L.L.C., AND EDWIN C. OLSEN IV. 

Judgment entered March 12, 2014 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1





                        Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors
Caere Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-35033, 33-49114, 33-32992, 33-66430, 33-81708, 33-87824, 33-81680,
33-60027, 333-02293, and 333-10803) on Form S-8 of Caere Corporation of our
reports dated January 28, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Caere Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
and the related schedule, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference
in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-K of Caere Corporation.





                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

                             /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



San Jose, California
March 25, 1997